walshb wrote: » Leo is not homophobic. And, I guess everyone could be accused of being everything if we look at ALL their lives and delve deep into everything they ever did, said, shared etc I know I would be if this was the case....And I am sure many many many others would be But I know deep down I am not homophobic/racist. I am sure it is the same for you....you are not racist/homophobic.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If you actively stand against rights for people when YOU have the power to give them, then I am sorry, you have to stand accused of homophobia or racism. There was no need for TD's to come out t stand for what was right, many who were not gay were standing up and being counted. It isn't an excuse.
walshb wrote: » That's it......'stand accused.' Isn't everyone now being accused of everything....it's all combat..... I personally would not accuse anyone of being homophobic if they told me that they voted against allowing gay people to marry. I voted to give rights. Because to me, it did not affect me. And I didn't feel comfortable refusing people the same right to marry as I had. Plus, Leo changed his view on the marriage issue. People are allowed change their stance/views etc.... He was NEVER homophobic, and is certainly not now..
walshb wrote: » That's it......'stand accused.' Isn't everyone now being accused of everything....it's all combat..... I personally would not accuse anyone of being homophobic if they told me that they voted against allowing gay people to marry.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If the effect of what they were doing was denying rights then yes that 'action' is homophobic in effect. It wasn't the 1800's when he was being asked to stand up and be counted. He put party first and also stands accused of jumping on a bandwagon when he did change his mind. What you make of that depends on your overall view of him as a person I suppose.
walshb wrote: » Well It is all in the past. The man made a call at the time. He has since changed his views. I do not believe Leo to be homophobic. I am sure many would agree....same as I don't see many others as homophobic Like I said, we are ALL homophobic if we dig deep enough and use whatever definition suits the narrative. You defended Stanley continually.... see, all about narrative and sides Stanley is likely not homophobic, despite his insensitive tweet....the actual tweet could be classed as homophobic...
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not asking you to 'believe' anything. I do think a spontaneous ambiguous tweet is slightly different to a thought out policy position while in a position of power TBH.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Accusing Leo of homophobia is a bit of a push, the man could certainly be accused of placing personal and party goals ahead of gay marriage, but surely you'd attribute that to selfishness rather than homophobia? I spent long enough living in his constituency to have had my share of personal interactions with the man, and I've been known to enjoy a good dig at him, but accusing him of being homophobic is stretching the definition to its breaking point, no?
walshb wrote: » Change topic: Has anyone in SF came out to give their views on the Blanchardstown shooting yesterday? I know some very inconsiderate and ignorant people (in positions of influence) have come out guns blazing against the Gardai. Just wondering have SF? I would like to think they have not...and are allowing the process of investigation to go ahead.
Meanwhile, Dublin West TD Paul Donnelly is urging anyone who has any information in relation the incident to come forward. ‘A shocking chain of events took place in which a young man was shot dead by the gardaí after he tried to attack them with a knife,’ he said. ‘If anyone has any information in relation to [yesterday’s] sequence of events, I urge them to come forward to assist the Garda investigation.’ The Sinn Féin deputy also appealed to the public not to share video footage of the shooting. He said: ‘Instead, they should send them to the gardaí to assist them with their investigation, and to also assist the Garda Ombudsman with their own investigation.’
McMurphy wrote: » Your prayers have been answered so.
marieholmfan wrote: » Internalised homophobia exists? If he isn't a homophobe then why did he join Alice Glenn's politcal party?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Just answering a question asked by a poster. Not sure what thread it happened in.
McMurphy wrote: » Poster asked a question, it was answered, your lack of counter argument was noted though. I've being saying it for months now, your constant faux homophobic insinuations have taken away any merit to the genuine ones. Had Leo Varadkar made those comments as a member of any other political party you would have been all over it like a rash, lashing out homophobic slurs. Most people, and myself included couldn't care less about anyone's sexual persuasion,who they sleep with is fine by me tbh, its the people who keep bringing it up I fear might be harbouring the homophobic tendencies.
nigeldaniel wrote: » Well, I have no interest in Leo here as its an SF thread, just saying as from time to time their is an awfully lot of 'look over there, look at that fella'
Fionn1952 wrote: » While I'm probably not the best person to defend Varadkar, and certainly internalised homophobia can exist, I don't think there's much in the way of evidence that he's homophobic rather than self serving. It's somewhat facetious to describe FG as Alice Glenn's party if you mean to imply she was anything more than a minor cog, but I'll bite anyway. It's possible he joined a party which also contained an incredibly socially conservative woman because of his own internalised homophobia, but I'd say it is altogether more likely that he joined that party because it was his best vector to achieving his own self-serving goals, and socially liberal policies were much further down his list of priorities than his own personal success. This would be evidenced by his pivot on the topic when it became obvious that the winds had changed and there was more political capital to be gained from taking a stance in favour of it, compared with the political capital lost by alienating some older more socially conservative voters.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If the effect was to deny rights then it can rightly be called homophobic. Excusing it by claiming, as one poster did, that it was because his coming out was difficult because of his 'traditional family' background (which caused a few raised eyebrows and is still unexplained) or that he was self interested is immaterial in my view, the effect was still the same.
Fionn1952 wrote: » So by your standards Francie, was anyone who didn't vote either way in the referendum homophobic? The effect could've been to deny rights. Where do we draw the line? If someone didn't actively campaign are they homophobic? I don't agree at all that intention has no bearing on this. It can't be solely about outcome, and I don't think you would take that line of reasoning if we weren't discussing Varadkar. I have read your posts in the past defending certain social media gaffes by referring to intentions (which I think is entirely reasonable, and quite in line with how I would approach things), and I'd apply the same standards to Leo.....not that I think the alternative explanation is a positive thing.
rdwight wrote: » *mod snip Less of the personal nonsense* Bowie, on the other hand, has entered a late contender for worst historical analogy of the year award.
FrancieBrady wrote: » blanch was refusing to accept that Leo, along with decades of governments were being homopobhic in refusing rights. He refused to accept that nobody needed to 'come out' to stand up for what was right when he made the excuse that Leo's tardiness was down to the pressures he felt and the 'traditional family' background he came from. He never explained what he meant by that.
Bowie wrote: » While likely not intentionally racist it smacks of ignorance stereotyping a person based on their ethnicity.
blanch152 wrote: » It was nothing to do with ethnicity, it was all to do with conservatism with a small ‘c’. You knew that, though.
blanch152 wrote: » It was nothing to do with ethnicity, it was all to do with conservatism with a small ‘c’.
a very cool kid wrote: » Mary Lou very quiet on the Garda incident yesterday.....
PearseCork92 wrote: » Jesus wept. I'm convinced that FG have an equivalent of Mao's little red book they leaf through to find boilerplate responses when they're caught on the hop with their tangled non-values.
Bowie wrote: » Varadkar can stand up and argue against gay people having the right to raise kids because he thinks/thought(?) a child needed a man and a woman. SF's Holohan said he preferred a leader who was a family man and knew what it was like to raise kids. One was labeled a homophobe and had a thread started on him. Not to mention the whiff of Holohan off suggesting Varadkar's 'traditional family' background excused his view gay people shouldn't be allowed raise children. Neither homophobic IMO, but you can't help but see the hypocrisy.
